Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 252 of 252

Thread: Gateway Boulevard and Calgary Trail

  1. #201
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    45,896

    Default

    ^good god no!

    99 st needs less traffic, not more.

    Alignment and the switchback need attention, but IT IS where traffic coming in should be.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  2. #202
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,711
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    $$$

    no thanks.
    ...sorry...that's a flippant cop out...anything to fix that part of the world is going to cost...

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    That cost would be incredibly prohibitive though. I like the idea of it, but do wonder about opportunity cost.
    ...sorry Ian...I will revise your statement to say wonder about the opportunity...

    ...riddle me this...when CP pulls south...do we not have to remediate that soil...aka dig it out...so why not keep digging...this tunnel does NOT need a TBM...it is cut and cover just like the Leg pedway over 97th...

    ...take advantage of the opportunity...for it will cost you far greater if you don't...


    You have a straight ROW that has only a couple parking lots, a couple crappy cement block buildings, and as Caboose...it isn't hard....and when you get back to grade past the old Iron Horse...there are opportunities for a small flyover for the southbound traffic to land back on Cal Tr S...all that's further south is rail land to be vacated...a city yard...and some car repair...

    ...so a RH exit off the gateway we love..er loathe...and onto the expressway to DT...keeps whyte sane and quirky and accessible from the LH lanes...

    ...and what you put on top of the pedway between whyte and sask drive could make it...as Brentk says...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brentk View Post
    Tunnelling would be a smooth and good transition in to our downtown core. Plus it would make Whyte much more walkable.

    ..so on top you could put a neat set of shops, cafe's, an outdoor extension to the farmer's market...etc etc etc...and keep your caboose...


    Quote Originally Posted by debos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    That cost would be incredibly prohibitive though. I like the idea of it, but do wonder about opportunity cost.
    I agree but there aren't too many alternatives unless we want to destroy Mill Creek.

    The tunnel is something that will have to be explored in the future. Hopefully other upgrades to Gateway keep that in mind.
    ...which is why 91st died and we now only have the tunnel option...or you could cut into the ground and not cover...still end up at grade on QE Hill...but I'd hate that option...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  3. #203

    Default

    From my perspective, the tunnelling issue will eventually have to be revisitted at some point in the future, so any pre work that can be applied at this stage as tunnelling shoulld be done now. Cost will only escalate in the near or long future.

  4. #204
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,711
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...simply put...Gateway is our ONLY opportunity to alleviate any issues...there is no other route...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  5. #205

    Default

    I live within walking distance of 103 street in Starthcona. I've had to drive the hairpin to the Fifth Street and the road down to the Low Level Bridges more times than I count, at all times of day.

    As a resident and as a driver, I say there is NO need to do any construction on the approaches to the river from 103 street, Saskatchewan Drive, QE Park Road, or Scona Hill, beyond maintenance as necessary. None at all.

    It will damage the eco. Which for some of us I suppose is the only possible reason to do anything.

  6. #206

    Default

    As for tunneling... lets remember long term LRT plans want to run a train down whyte.

    So wee will ether have to take the LRT over gateway.. or gateway under the LRT... either option will cost.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  7. #207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    I live within walking distance of 103 street in Starthcona. I've had to drive the hairpin to the Fifth Street and the road down to the Low Level Bridges more times than I count, at all times of day.

    As a resident and as a driver, I say there is NO need to do any construction on the approaches to the river from 103 street, Saskatchewan Drive, QE Park Road, or Scona Hill, beyond maintenance as necessary. None at all.

    It will damage the eco. Which for some of us I suppose is the only possible reason to do anything.
    Everyone has different opinions; Just as you believimg a constitutional marriage is based on a man's wallet on other topics.

  8. #208
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,711
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    (...)
    It will damage the eco. Which for some of us I suppose is the only possible reason to do anything.
    Please clarify this statement...how will it damage the ecosystem/ecology (or did eco mean economy)?...

    ...again...well designed...this would help the local ecology...

    ..the rest...OK...your opinion...the several I know that drive that daily hate that congestion...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  9. #209
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    91st Street was originally planned to be a freeway that would connect Highway 2 then it would run down Mill Creek Ravine...
    http://albertaroads.homestead.com/ed...S/overview.jpg

  10. #210

    Default

    ^ that would damage the eco system far more than the fear mongering done by AShetsen.

  11. #211

    Default

    ^cars idling at stop lights damage the eco as well

  12. #212

    Default

    What fear-mongering? I just see no need to cut away any of what is now parkland. Another person responds to the voices in his head.

  13. #213
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,643

    Default

    A minor bit of good news for Gateway Blvd...Notorious motel condemned over health violations
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  14. #214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    As for tunneling... lets remember long term LRT plans want to run a train down whyte.

    So wee will ether have to take the LRT over gateway.. or gateway under the LRT... either option will cost.

    Gateway under whyte ave and the lrt. The LRT runs overtop of whitemud along with 109st. Yes, it cost money to build, but it wasn't a world stopping project...

  15. #215
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    A minor bit of good news for Gateway Blvd...Notorious motel condemned over health violations
    I would love to see the building demolished and the land being reserved for a future freeway.

  16. #216
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    EDMONTON, AB
    Posts
    557

    Default

    We do not need a freeway right through built up areas of the cities. Almost all planning literature today (and just common knowledge) knows that these expensive undertakings only serve to divide communities, make cities less bikable, walkable, and public transit friendly.

    http://www.theatlanticcities.com/com...be-fixed/1399/

    Just one article for reference.
    Mike

  17. #217
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,502

    Default

    It's nice to see that there actually other like minded individuals on this site and in the Edmonton area that see a need for an expressway into the downtown core and realize that most people don't live within walking/biking distance of work and that edmonton's current public transit system is not only dirty and poorly maintained but also inefficient.

  18. #218
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,788

    Default

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, I love my truck and do like driving very much but the last thing we need is expressways that will promote car traffic even more.

    This property is in too good of a location to let it go to waste. I would rather see a really good hotel built there or a mix of commercial retail/offices.

    Of if we wanted to look at this area to help in transportation then build a mixed development where the ground level would be retail business and then there could be a multi-level park n ride parkade above the retail building with super express busses coming and going from that complex for commuters to take to the downtown with one stop at 103rd and Whyte for some to transfer to busses going to the UofA.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  19. #219
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,547

    Default

    Not sure what communities a better constructed (at least semi-free flow) Gateway would divide. Superstore from End of the Roll?

    Agreed there's no point in setting aside one health/safety relic motel when others on the same ROW are perfectly fine.

    But I still think we could do better with access and egress to motel row and to South Centre while preserving two or three centre "through lanes" to make traffic flow better.
    ... gobsmacked

  20. #220
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,502

    Default

    Off topic slightly, but imagine this as the gateway into the city, assuming cost wasn't an issue...


    Okay!...right at the international airport intersection the QE2 is elevated all the way to the AHD interchange. (it will be angled so the highest point of elevation is right at the AHD interchange)

    At the AHD interchange it drops sharply below grade into a brightly lighted tunnel using multi colored LED lighting technology and powered via solar panels. The tunnel travels the entire way underground to Saskatchewan drive with a few free flow access points (whitemud, Whyte ave) and then bursts out from below grade from the edge of the river valley giving the true gateway into Edmonton the beautiful skyline and river valley. At which point it would swoop down to the new rossdale bridge and into the core.....


    ...assuming cost and NIMBYs weren't an issue...

  21. #221
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,741

    Default

    Even if cost wasn't an issue, I don't see the point of having such a long tunnel and elevated section? I think a tunnel under Whyte Ave and Saskatchewan Drive would be cool... But all the way from AHD? That just doesn't make any sense...

  22. #222
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,502

    Default

    It makes perfect sense. The elevated section from the airport to AHD with the highest point being at AHD is to get a view of the downtown skyline from afar. The tunnel would be a showcase to our engineering brilliance and it would be beautifully lighted with modern LEDs and solar power to showcase green energy and it would burst put from underground into the green and lush river valley and down to the new iconic rossdale bridge. That's why it makes sense, for beauty, no other reason...hence the cost not being an issue. Keep in mind the existing gateway blvd and Calgary trail would be kept...the new road would have to be given a pretty awesome name though...

  23. #223
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,626

    Default

    Nothing like making people drive on an icy elevated bridge deck for 20km, then giving them a huge free-flow straightaway with absolutely no snow/ice, then re-expose them to the sun and other elements right at the same point that they need to turn and go downhill to stop.

    Not to mention how utterly boring a 10km tunnel would be to drive.

  24. #224
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,502

    Default

    Use solar panels to create power to heat the elevated section.

    The "boring tunnel" is lighted with LEDs creating a light show underground.

    The tunnel would emerge from underground close to the bottom of the river valley creating even more "height" to the downtown cores skyline and the beauty of the valley right before it gently slopes the remaining way to the new iconic bridge.

  25. #225
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,502

    Default

    ^you could even paint murals in the tunnel or I stall television billboards with advertising for places like fort Edmonton park and the zoo or the water park at west Ed, or the ski hill....

  26. #226
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,626

    Default

    Nothing wrong with dreaming, but I think that this particular dream is pretty ridiculous.

  27. #227
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,502

    Default

    Meh, it's just a dream to make a Statement gateway road into Edmonton. It will never be built due to costs and of course NIMBY...but it would be pretty iconic.

  28. #228
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Use solar panels to create power to heat the elevated section.
    Actually a better idea is to store the heat in the summer then release it when needed in the winter, there have been a few pilot projects already
    http://www.polydynamics.ch/e/r_d/page_e_serso.htm
    http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php...r-YhoQ&cad=rja

  29. #229
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    221

    Default

    I have an idea, it would be challenging and not a quick fix but an on-going vision of esthetic appeal:
    Make gateway not a tunnel or elevated freeway (I like the ideas but here is just another idea) but a corridor of medium-sized towers built with architectural set guidelines. Zone Gateway and area with the appropriate zoning to do this and have these towers built eventually, one by one, year after year with appropriate set-backs and landscaping.

    Maybe with esthetically pleasing medium-sized towers welcoming people into Edmonton, this could be the "urban" look people would desire.

    Any comments or suggestions?
    Edmonton is a diverse landscape of business and culture in a beautiful rivervalley setting

  30. #230
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,547

    Default

    As CP Rail moves out - there'll be lots of opportunity to zone that area however the City wants.

    A grand boulevard and not freeway might be fine - but I'd need some more specifics.

    Keep in mond that development will be either mostly or all private sector $$ - so we can encourage but can't make it happen.
    ... gobsmacked

  31. #231
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Summerside
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mki View Post
    I have an idea, it would be challenging and not a quick fix but an on-going vision of esthetic appeal:
    Make gateway not a tunnel or elevated freeway (I like the ideas but here is just another idea) but a corridor of medium-sized towers built with architectural set guidelines. Zone Gateway and area with the appropriate zoning to do this and have these towers built eventually, one by one, year after year with appropriate set-backs and landscaping.

    Maybe with esthetically pleasing medium-sized towers welcoming people into Edmonton, this could be the "urban" look people would desire.

    Any comments or suggestions?
    I like the idea very much but they would need to widen the road to handle the extra traffic those buildings would cause. The past 5 years into downtown during rush hour is already hendered. I would like to see this idea, along with some solution to traffic to downtown.

  32. #232

    Default

    Let's go big. Imagine Gateway and Calgary Trail like this in thirty years... Avenida 9 de Julio in Buenos Aires:




    http://www.mostinterestingfacts.com/...the-world.html

    Slowly rezone and develop the the area around the roads starting from around Whyte avenue. Over years and decades, if done right, we could have a beautiful entrance to the city.
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  33. #233

    Default We need to fix Gateway and Whyte Ave and also fix the ridiculous 180 degree turn.

    Gateway at Whyte Ave is only going to get worse unless we do something to fix it now. Additionally where Gateway just ends is completely ridiculous for a city of our size nevertheless one of Red Deer. What kind of city has its primary entrance route to downtown use a ridiculous almost 180 degree turn and then have 2 strong curves after that. Sure it is understandable where to drive for someone who has lived here for a couple of years. But for a visitor or potential investor coming to our city this road is a complete embarrassment.

    I believe in an almost decade old desire of Robert Noce that we need to have a decent bridge network to and from downtown.

  34. #234

    Default

    Sure a new bridge would be ideal but it's not mandatory. Could you imagine the cost of a bridge that massive - and could you ever justify funding that over say a new leg of the LRT?
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  35. #235

    Default

    Sorry to zombie this thread, but regarding the issue of getting Gateway into downtown: Has anyone thought of creating a large traffic circle connecting Saskatchewan Drive to 97th Avenue? Here's a draft:



    Things to note:

    1) The design plan preserves much of the current alignment but only has a design speed of 60 km/h (therefore posted at 50). The ultimate plan *should* adhere to a design of 90 (posted 80 a la Whitemud) but I'm going by memory and data gleaned from the internet.

    2) I have not included the de-facto extension created by the High-Level Bridge because my pen burst and I gave up. Although it is already one-way, some changes will have to be made to make it free-flowing.

    3) See (2) for the reason why access at 99 street was not included.

    4) This proposal uses the assumed alignment of the Walterdale replacement. Ideally, both new and old bridges will be kept a la METS to ensure 6 lanes of traffic at each crossing. However, the workaround uses High Level in addition to Walterdale.

    5) Property acquisitions/expropriation will have to be made east of Scona road and north of Saskatchewan Drive for road realignments. The northern tip of the Mill Creek will have to be sacrificed. A park could be created west of the realigned Scona to compensate. The jog in Queen Elizabeth Drive will have to go (Last time I checked there was an empty clearing there. Have to confirm what it is).

    6) A deliberate attempt to simplify the mess around Muttart was made. In my proposed circle, 98th Ave would carry all traffic from the Low Level, while James Macdonald would be fed by by the circle and Conners Road. It was my intention to segregate downtown-eastbound traffic to relieve pressure from the circle, which is mainly intended for north-south motorists.

    7) The West Rossdale developments will probably be killed altogether. None of the historical/archaelogical/cultural sites should be affected, although the Armory might have to sacrifice a bit of garden for the access to Bellamy/Rossdale.

    8) The accesses at downtown are very awkward due to space contraints. I will have to mull on the issue a bit longer.

    I realise this proposal is unlikely to ever get off the ground, but it is nice to dream about. Consider it a spiritual successor to the Downtown Freeway Loop of METS.
    Last edited by Foolworm; 26-04-2013 at 11:39 AM. Reason: Disabled smilies

  36. #236
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,469

    Default

    Now, now. T------ C----- is a no-no word in these parts, doncha know.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  37. #237

    Default

    Looks like the city is selling the land that currently provides a nice berm between the road and the rail yard: http://www.edmonton.ca/business_econ...48_Gateway.pdf

    Too bad that the city is still treating Gateway/Cgy Trail as just another city roadway flanked by strip malls and not like the major portal that it is.

  38. #238

    Default

    ^It's 6 acres of land, and most of it is gravel... and it's under the Strathcona Junction ARP and direct architectural, design restrictions and...

    If you read condition #4 it specifies strict design parameters, which includes LEED standards.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  39. #239
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,741

    Default

    This is very surprising to me. I would think they would want to keep this land undeveloped. Not just from a future freeway point-of-view, but also because it is a tiny little bit of green in a sea of gravel and asphalt.

  40. #240

    Default

    The majority of the land in question IS gravel, the berm that is there is maybe half a metre wide patchwork of low-cut bushes. Plus the idea of the "future-freeway" runs contrary to the plans for 104st, which is slated to have University Ave to 82 ave turned back into a two-way road - however, maybe in twenty years time - and the area's redevelopment plan in general. The City's move to sell vacant and developable lands in the Strathcona Junction is a push to concentrate more business in this area and to turn it around from open swaths of abandoned land to business, taxes, density, and creating central employment while enhancing the entryway to Strathcona and downtown. A building there would hide a portion of the railyards more than sick looking bushes or trees.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  41. #241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    plans for 104st, which is slated to have University Ave to 82 ave turned back into a two-way road
    Seriously? Ugh, our access into and out of downtown via the south side is so pathetic...and it doesn't seem like the 250 (some) million spent on 23rd ave is in any way part of a bigger (coordinated) plan to improve that.

  42. #242

    Default

    ^Scona Road, Connors Road, new Walterdale, Capilano/Groat Bridges... I guess a free-way through one of Canada's best shopping and walkable historic districts is what everyone is looking for? However that is 103 street we are talking about. Business along the old 'Main Street' (104 street) need a two-way road to grow and thrive. Two-way road from University Ave north means more business, more people walking to and from work/shops/play, and more commerce and activity in one of the city's best neighbourhoods. Besides, 104 st is a southbound lane, not northbound into downtown.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  43. #243

    Default

    The 41st ave SW Interchange has finally started construction and the rail yards to the east are slowly progressing. That massive yard east of gateway and west of 99st is a great opportunity to develop and transform the southern entrance to our city.


    .......or maybe another strip motel???

  44. #244

    Default

    I'm not advocating for Gateway/Calgary Trail freeway all the way into Downtown, but I think that it's important that the city improves these two roadways both functionally and aesthetically, so here's what I've outlined as a plan for a central North South route into Downtown.

    1) Upgrade the portions of Gateway and Calgary Trail up to Whitemud to freeway status. Construct one additional interchange at 34 Avenue and modify the Whitemud interchanges so traffic is free flow moving from Gateway and Calgary Trail and vice versa.

    2) After Whitemud, Gateway and Calgary Trail will maintain the same form as they do in the present day as major arterial roads with at-grade intersections; however, shortly after 51 Avenue, Calgary Trail will merge with Gateway as a two-way road. The northern remainder of Calgary Trail will become a two way street as prescribed in the Strathcona Junction Planning Study. Here is a map of what I propose to the area. Blue = North Bound Traffic l Yellow = Southbound Traffic l Red = Road Closures



    3) At some point before Whyte Avenue, begin a tunnel using a boring machine to avoid disturbing the Old Strathcona District. Northbound traffic to Old Strathcona will still be permitted as well as Southbound traffic from Old Strathcona going on to Gateway/Calgary Trail. The tunnel will end and open out into the River Valley where Queen Elizabeth Park Road presently stands. This will allow two way traffic onto the Walterdale and into Downtown. In my rendering, the tunnel would begin at 79 Avenue to reduce disturbance to historical landmarks and since it is surrounded by relatively undeveloped land beside the rail yard. The interchange at 79 Avenue would be similar in structure the one found on Wayne Gretzky Drive at 106 Avenue. The dotted pink line represents the tunnelled portion that allows two way traffic.



    4) Once across the river, I've drawn an idea from Foolworm's plan: to have 105 Street go onto Bellamy Hill Road where it will eventually lead to 101 Street. Overall, the final result will be a continuous North-South route through much of the city since using 101 Street will allow two way traffic coming from the Southside go through Downtown and through much of the Northside.


  45. #245

    Default

    Was quite surprised, and confused to see 'coming soon' signs along this stretch of gateway, just north of 34 avenue. I did not imagine this was ever land to become anything. It is rather nice just having it as berm hiding the railyards and adding trees to the stretch.

    Would this not also hinder any type of bridge etc... for 34 avenue in the future?

    I would really like to see the city's longterm plan for gateway, because as it stands it seems there is absolutely no vision.
    I do not look forward to more strip malls/industrial warehouse, in fact they should be making more berms and adding more trees....



    All info/photos here:
    http://www.edmonton.ca/business_econ...48_Gateway.pdf

  46. #246
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,643

    Default

    An election is coming up...let's bring this up with the candidates, shall we?
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  47. #247

    Default

    Yes would be nice to have this addressed, I think this a very important issue that has been and continues to be ignored.

  48. #248

    Default

    I think merely a re-look at the plan and a couple revisions since 2011 are in order.

    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...solidation.pdf
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  49. #249
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,469

    Default

    Won't the rail container yard be gone from there once the new one at our southern boundary opens? Seems the current site would be integrated with the strip outlined above. Not sure how, though, as the through rail line will still be there for the foreseeable future. Do we really need the line to come in as far as 82 Ave? If it was passenger traffic, I could see it. But freight? Nah.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  50. #250

    Default

    ^Not in municipal jurisdiction, and there is still a switching yard between 81ave and 63ave.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  51. #251
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Anyone here anything more about this strip of land soon to be for sale along Gateway?

    It sure would be nice to use the land next to the CPR and turn Gateway into a north-south freeway right up to about University Avenue where there would be exits to Whyte Avenue and a tunnel down to cross the new Walterdale Bridge.

    Calgary trail could be turned into a two lane north and south bound local roadway.

  52. #252
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jackson View Post
    Anyone here anything more about this strip of land soon to be for sale along Gateway?

    It sure would be nice to use the land next to the CPR and turn Gateway into a north-south freeway right up to about University Avenue where there would be exits to Whyte Avenue and a tunnel down to cross the new Walterdale Bridge.

    Calgary trail could be turned into a two lane north and south bound local roadway.
    I hope this is in the city's future plans. The layout now just doesn't work.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •